Customs penalty fails where declared goods were classifiable differently and no intent to evade duty was shown.

Penalty was held unsustainable where the importer had declared the goods as fixed wireless terminals in complete set, paid duty with interest, and the dispute related to classification under the proper customs heading. The Tribunal noted that correct classification was the assessing officer's responsibility and found no material showing a deliberate attempt by the importer to evade duty or avoid payment of CVD. In the absence of any intention to suppress classification facts or evade levy, the foundation for penalty was absent. Penalty was therefore not imposable, the assessee's appeal was allowed, and the Revenue's appeals against deletion of penalty were rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty was sustainable where the importer had declared the goods and paid duty with interest, and the dispute related to classification of the imported goods.

Analysis: The imported goods were held to be classifiable under the appropriate customs heading, and the responsibility to determine the correct classification lay with the assessing officer. The records showed that the goods had been declared as fixed wireless terminals in a complete set, and the Tribunal found no material to treat the classification adopted by the importer as a deliberate act to evade duty. Since duty had been paid along with interest and the circumstances did not establish an intention to avoid payment of CVD, the basis for penalty was absent.

Conclusion: Penalty was not imposable and was set aside in the assessee's appeal, while the Revenue's appeals challenging the dropping of penalty were rejected.

---